To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Technical Development, Planning and Utilization
Unit Newsletter
NC Forest Service (NCFS) - NCDA & CS
Stand Manager
VOLUME 6, ISSUE 2 WINTER ISSUE— DECEMBER 2012
Inside this issue:
Tech Update 1
Pine Silviculture—Shortleaf 1-3
Agroforestry Research 4-5
Forest Economics for RCW 6
Nursery/TI Update 7
Field Notes 7
Hardwood Silviculture 8-9
In this issue, we provide technical information and research results targeted toward
two tree species that the NC Forest Service is devoting increased efforts, namely
longleaf pine and shortleaf pine. These efforts will help to provide activities toward
our strategic objectives in the NC Forest Action Plan. They include objective 4.3— To
advocate and promote markets for forest derived ecosystem services and non-timber
products, and objective 5.3—Promote the restoration and conservation of declining
tree species and forest ecosystems. “Maintain and Restore Forests in Decline” is a key
Departmental Initiative that has been incorporated into the NCDA & CS Strategic Plan.
Also in this issue is cooperative research results with NC State University regarding an
Agroforestry trial that was established on NCDA & CS land along with forest economic
analysis of conservation payments for off-base RCW mitigation on private land. Our
nursery and tree improvement program continues to support both federal & state
initiatives to develop future capacity for tree species of concern. The last article pro-vides
a summary on growing hardwood tree species to meet a projected increased
demand for woody biomass from emerging bioenergy markets in the southern US.
Pine Silviculture
Shortleaf pine is an important but declining tree species in the southeastern US. Compared to the widely planted
loblolly pine, restoration of shortleaf pine deserves an increased consideration for future management because of
desirable traits that make it resilient to climate change, tolerant to drought conditions, and management acceptance
of prescribed fire to provide multiple benefits for wildlife habitat and ecosystem benefits. To be successful with any
shortleaf pine restoration efforts, it will be important to properly evaluate the site potential or site index (SI) for
potential management.
Several methods have been developed for predicting site index for a species when it
cannot be directly measured, and may be determined using either: (1) association of site
quality classes with soil series, soil mapping unit, or some other soil physical properties,
(2) prediction of SI from a mathematical equation using measured soil and site
characteristics.
Tech Update: By Barry New
Site Evaluation For Shortleaf Pine Restoration
By Ron Myers
Technical Development, Planning and Utilization Unit
Newsletter
NC Forest Service (NCFS) - NCDA & CS
The Stand Manager Editor: Ron.Myers@ncagr.gov 2411 Old US Hwy. 70West, Clayton NC 27520 919-553-6178
Early work in the Piedmont region examined the relation of soil characteristics and properties to site index of loblolly
and shortleaf pines (Coile 1948, Coile and Schumacher 1953). Soil features most often correlated with shortleaf pine
site quality are surface soil thickness, depth to a restricting, mottled, or less permeable horizon; surface soil texture,
subsoil texture, and subsoil consistency. Both texture and structure are correlated with consistence that can be
grouped into subsoil classes. These variables can influence soil aeration, internal drainage, moisture holding capacity,
and ultimately the growth of tree roots important for long-term tree productivity and health.
Table 1: Site Index values for Shortleaf pine in the Piedmont Plateau by Subsoil class.
1Coile and Schumacher 1953
The best shortleaf pine sites are usually on well-drained, medium textured soils, with a good depth of A horizon
(> 6”). Medium-textured soils make good sites because they have adequate available soil moisture and nutrient
levels, good soil structure, internal drainage and aeration, all of which favor tree root development. Fine-textured
soils generally have adequate soil moisture, but they are often of lower site quality because of dense clay subsoil
with poor structure, internal drainage and aeration, or lack of A horizon from erosion. Sites where soils are composed
of alluvium present a special situation where drainage class, the depth of the slope, and distance to the drainage
channel may have equal or greater effects on site quality than properties of the soil profile alone. In the western part
of the range of shortleaf pine, topographic features affecting site quality are aspect, slope steepness, slope position,
slope shape, and elevation. The best sites are generally on N to E facing, gently sloping, concave, or lower slope
positions, while poor sites are on narrow ridges and S to W facing, steep, convex upper slopes (Graney 1986).
Site Index Relationships
Although site index can be predicted using soil characteristics, another approach has been to use
the measured site index of a commonly associated species. Site index comparisons between loblolly
and shortleaf pine indicate that the SI of either species can be predicted using the SI of the other.
The relationship between site index values for both loblolly pine (SIL) and shortleaf pine (SIS)
appear to be linear, with the mean difference in SI greatest on poor sites and decreasing as site
quality improves. Early research by T.S. Coile on shortleaf pine in the Piedmont region of NC found that loblolly pine
site index was always higher than that of shortleaf with no significant differences attributed to topographic position
class alone. Coile’s simple regression equations using SI alone and no site/soil variables produced the following:
SIS = 0.885(SIL) and SIL = 1.13(SIS), using a zero intercept method.
PAGE 2 STAND MANAGER
Pine Silviculture Continued:
Depth to Subsoil (inches)
Subsoil
Consistence
2 4 6 8 10 12 18
Very Friable 51 62 66 68 69 70 71
Friable 47 59 62 64 65 66 67
Semi-Plastic 43 54 58 60 61 62 63
Plastic 38 49 53 55 56 57 58
Very Plastic 33 44 48 50 51 52 53
VOLUME 6, ISSUE 2 PAGE 3
References:
Coile, T.S. 1948. Relation of Soil Characteristics to Site Index of Loblolly and Shortleaf Pines in the lower Piedmont
Region of North Carolina. Bulletin 13. Duke Univ., Sch. For., Durham NC, NC.78 p.
Coile, T.S. and Schumacher, F.X. 1953. Relation of Soil Properties to Site Index of Loblolly and Shortleaf Pines in the
Piedmont Region of the Carolinas, Georgia, and Alabama. J. For. 51(10): 739-744.
Graney, D.L. 1986. Site Quality Relationships for Shortleaf Pine. P. 41-52 in Proc. Symp. on the Shortleaf Pine
Ecosystem. Ark. Coop. Ext. Serv., Monticellow, AR.
Harrington, C.A. 1987. Site-Index Comparisons for Naturally Seeded Loblolly Pine and Shortleaf Pine. SJAF 11(1987).
Harrington’s research included a larger sample of plots (190) between the two species in nine southern states and
examined geographical difference between plots located in the east vs. west along with effects from elevation and
mean slope percent. He found that simple regression equations predicting the SI of one species using only the SI of
the other species were not significantly different for plots in the east and west and that the correlation coefficients
and standard errors were higher in eastern plots. He found that simple regression equations predicting the SI of one
pine species using only the SI of the other pine species were not significantly different for plots in the east and west
and that the correlation coefficients and standard errors were higher in eastern plots.
His simple regression equations for SI for both species were as follows SIS = 0.963(SIL) – 1.62 with standard error of
5.70 and SIL = 0.791(SIS) + 20.68 with standard error of 5.17 The correlation coefficient was the same for both
equations with (R2)=0.872 Using these simple regression equations from Harrington and Coile, a site index
comparison graph can be produced for graphical interpretation of SI for both species on the same land (Figure 1).
Site index differences between shortleaf and loblolly pine in mixed stands are usually 10-15 feet on better sites in
the Carolina Piedmont and 0-10 feet, depending on the soil and site conditions in the western part of the range.
However, Harrington’s research suggests that contrary to past perceptions that shortleaf pine would be most
competitive with that of loblolly pine on poor sites, site index of shortleaf pine was most comparable to loblolly pine
on the better sites.
Figure 1: SI Comparison for Loblolly pine and Shortleaf pine on the same land.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Loblolly Pine
(SIL)
Shortleaf Pine (SIS)
Coile 1948
Harrington 1987
PAGE 4 STAND MANAGER
Early Tree Growth, Crop Yields, and Estimated Returns
for an Agroforestry Trial In Goldsboro, North Carolina
AgroForestry
The NC Forest Service cooperated with researchers at NC State University on an agroforestry project that
was established at the Center for Environmental Farming Systems in Goldsboro, North Carolina in January
2007. The NC Forest Service provided technical field assistance with species/site evaluation, forest tree
seedlings, and tree planting recommendations. Below is a short abstract summary of the results that have
been published in the above scientific paper.
Abstract: A 17 acre (6.9 ha) agroforestry
research and extension alley cropping trial was
established at the Center for Environmental
Farming Systems in Goldsboro, North Carolina in
January 2007, with a randomized block design
with five replications. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), and cherrybark oak
(Quercus pagoda) were planted in staggered
rows, with each species planted for 140 ft (43 m)
per Replication. Crop land alleys of 40 ft or 80 ft
(12.2 to 24.4 m) wide were left between the tree
rows. Crops of soybeans (Glycine max) and corn
(Zea mays) were planted in alternating years
since establishment.
As of 2011, survival rates were 93% for cherrybark oak, 88% for longleaf pine, and 97% for loblolly pine.
Average tree diameter at ground level was 1.0 in (2.5 cm) for cherrybark oak, 2.1 in (5.3 cm) for longleaf,
and 3.2 in (8.1 cm) for loblolly. Heights averaged 4.6 ft (1.4 m) for cherrybark oak, 5.2 ft (1.6 m) for longleaf
pine, and 10.4 ft (3.2 m) for loblolly pine. Growth, yield, and economic projections for traditional timber
production indicated that species volumes and values tracked the height and diameter relationships
measured on the site. Loblolly pine had the largest projected internal rate of return, at 7.2%, followed by
longleaf pine with pine straw harvests at 5.5%, longleaf without pine straw at 3.5%, and cherrybark oak at
1.9%. Their discounted land expectation values (and annual equivalent values) per acre at a 4% discount
rate were $789 ($32) for loblolly; $346 ($11) for longleaf with pine straw; -$49 (-$2) for longleaf; and -$376
(-$15) for cherrybark oak.
There might be more loss in crop and silvopasture production from shade and
root competition with loblolly, however, and production of pine straw for longleaf
or acorn mast from cherrybark oak may offer other benefits. Crop yields on the
sandy soils on the site were very poor during the four years observed, which had
a series of droughts and floods. These led to net financial losses averaging about
$150 per acre per year for those four years at the demonstration site, but
state-wide average farm budget returns did show moderate profits of about
$80 per acre per year. The results support the merits of agroforestry systems in
the upper South to diversify income and reduce financial risks.
By Fred Cubbage and Ron Myers
Agroforestry Trial on NCDA land in Goldsboro, NC
V PAGE 5 OLUME 6, ISSUE 2
A summary of the financial returns for tree species is presented in Table 2. These results do not include
cost-share payments in the analysis and would represent a baseline minimum that could be expected with
the potential for higher returns if cost-share payments were utilized to reduce establishment costs.
Table 2: Growth and Capital Budgeting Results for Three Species for Timber Production
Management Regimes at a Discount Rate of 4%
Over the 5 year study period, the forest tree species prospered
more than the crops, which were almost failures two out of the
four years. Between the periods of 2007-2010 alternate years of
either soybeans or corn resulted in negative returns/acre. If indeed
climate change does occur and is associated with decreased
summer rainfall and higher temperatures, agroforestry systems
with crops, or particularly livestock, do appear to be more viable
to diversify farm risk and ensure that at least some timber returns
are produced to offset any frequent years of crop losses.
Early results from this research trial indicate that each of these
tree systems could survive and provide some growth and modest
financial returns for an agroforestry system—perhaps as much
of more than pure crop systems on poor sites. As more time
progresses, the alley crop and livestock interactions will make this agroforestry trial and financial returns
more complex.
Additional agroforestry information in the form of fact sheets and power point presentations can be found
at the USDA National Agroforestry Center’s website at www.unl.edu/nac
Reference:
Cubbage, Frederick, Viola Glenn, J. Paul Mueller, Daniel Robison, Russell Myers, Jean-Marie Luginbuhl,
and Ron Myers. 2012. Early Tree Growth, Crop Yields, and Estimated Returns For an Agroforestry Trial in
Goldsboro, North Carolina. Agroforestry Systems. Agroforest Syst DOI 10.1007/s10457-012-9481-0.
Species
Rotation
Age
(yrs)
Harvest
Years
(Thin/
Final)
Total Projected
Volume Cut / MAI
(ft3/ac)
Net
Present
Value
($/ac)
Land
Expectation
Value ($/ac)
Annual
Equivalent
Value ($/ac)
Internal
Rate of
Return (%)
Cherrybark
Oak
80 55&80 4,846
61
-360 -376 -15 1.9
Longleaf Pine
*Timber Only
40
25&40
2,826
71
-49
-61
-2
3.7
Longleaf Pine
*Timber and
Pine Straw
40
25&40
2,826
71
274
346
11
5.5
Loblolly Pine 25 17&25 2,700
108
493 789 32 7.2
NCDA Forester David Schnake next to
planted oak trees in agroforestry trial.
PAGE 6 STAND MANAGER
Forest Economics By Fred Cubbage and Ron Myers
In 2012, the North Carolina Forest Service collaborated with researchers at NC State University to help develop and
analyze stand-level management regimes that are used to manage both Longleaf pine and Loblolly pine for economic
comparisons and to determine economic incentives in the form of conservation payments that would be required to
promote a change in landowner management preferences. Below is a abstract summary of a presentation of the
research that was presented at the Ecosystem Services Conference, December 10-14th, 2012 in Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Abstract: Military bases are central to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery plan for the red- cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) in North Carolina. A key strategy proposed for meeting the on base requirements of the
ESA is the development of economic incentives to encourage cooperative conservation of RCW habitat between
federal military and nonindustrial private agricultural and forest landowners (NIPAFs). Longleaf pine manage-ment
regimes were analyzed for three primary goals that included (1) timber maximization, (2) multiple
products, and (3) ecological services focused on developing RCW habitat. Capital budgeting models for land
management options consistent with RCW habitat requirements were analyzed and compared with traditional
pine management options and agricultural alternatives, using discounted cash flow measures of net present value
(NPV) and soil expectation value (SEV) as criteria at a 4% discount rate. The difference between the base loblolly
pine management options and the longleaf pine alternatives provided a baseline opportunity cost for conversion
to RCW habitat.
Longleaf pine managed for ecosystem services had lower financial returns than conventional loblolly pine and
only yielded a positive NPV with the addition of moderate pine straw revenues. Depending on the site quality
and management regime, the opportunity costs of conversion of loblolly pine to longleaf pine managed for
ecosystem services ranged from $485 to $698 per acre with no pine straw income to $56 to $255 per acre with
moderate income from pine straw. These results were highly sensitive to changes in both stumpage price and
cost share rate. The opportunity cost associated with transitioning average agriculture sites to longleaf ranged
from $1,612 to $4,655 per acre dependent on the crop, indicating that any future incentives for habitat creating
programs should focus on lands that favor forestry or on poor agriculture lands.
These loblolly and crop opportunity cost estimates could be used as a basis to
support conservation payments to provide an economic incentive for NIPAFs
to manage for RCW habitat. The 10 year annual conservation payment that
would be required to make longleaf pine financial returns equal to loblolly
pine ranged from $58 to $83 per acre per year with no pine straw income
and $7 to $50 per acre per year with moderate income from pine straw.
These conservation payment rates are reasonable, and suggest payments for
ecosystem services offer potential to establish longleaf pine ecosystems and
create additional RCW habitat on nonindustrial private agriculture and forest
lands. Other possible RCW ecosystem payments that could be investigated
could include paying much of the costs for longleaf stand establishment, or
paying landowners to extend the harvest of old loblolly pine or longleaf
stands for up to 30 years.
Economic Analysis of Payments Required to Promote Increased Longleaf Pine
Habitat on Private Lands in NC for Off-Base RCW Mitigation
RCW tree in LL stand at BLSF
Reference:
Glenn, Viola, Fred Cubbage, and Ron Myers. 2012. Using private lands to mitigate public Endangered Species Act requirements:
Opportunity costs for managing for red-cockaded woodpecker habitat on private lands in North Carolina. In: Proceedings,
Southern Forest Economics Workers Annual Meeting. In prep. Access at: http://sofew.cfr.msstate.edu/.
VOLUME 6, ISSUE 2 PAGE 7
Ranger Training Class Pictures 2012
In November 2011, a Memorandum of Agreement was
signed by the NC Forest Service and the US Forest Service,
National Forest System, Southern Region to facilitate
Shortleaf Pine nursery and tree improvement projects
in NC. In the agreement, both parties agree to work
collaboratively, including exchange of personnel and
other resources, in matters relating to the genetic
improvement and use of shortleaf pine germplasm for
the development of new genetic material and orchards
for future ecosystem restoration in the south.
NC Forest Service coordinated with USFS Silviculturists
and National Forest field personnel to visit and document
the location/condition of 10 Shortleaf Pine progeny
tests that were established in NC between the years of
1982-1986. NC Forest Service personnel from TDP, FIA,
and Nursery programs measured 6 Shortleaf Pine progeny
tests in the Fall 2012 to collect tree and family data on planted Shortleaf pine. Data from these 26-30 year old
shortleaf progeny tests are being analyzed by our Forest Geneticist to make future selections in these full sib crosses
to create new 2nd generation improved shortleaf pine seed orchards.
Field Notes: Special Projects & FM Activities submitted by County personnel or Foresters
Nursery & Tree Improvement News
NCFS Nursery & Tree Improvement Program Working on
Genetically Improved 2nd Generation Shortleaf Pine
By Ken Roeder—NCFS Forest Geneticist
Ranger Training Level I Ranger Training Level II
Retired USFS Silviculturist John Blanton (L), and current USFS
Silviculturist Jason Rodrique (R), standing in a Shortleaf Pine
progeny planting in the Nantahalla, NF
PAGE 8 STAND MANAGER
Hardwood Silviculture
Growing Populus Sp. in the Southern US for Short Rotation
Woody Crops (SRWC)
By Jeff Wright and Ron Myers
Demand for hardwood from plantation-grown stands for pulp and bioenergy in the southern US is more than 90
million tons/year and is increasing. Several fast growing hardwood species are being evaluated for planting to fill
this potential demand. The genus Populus, with more than 30 species, has some of the fastest growing trees in the
world. The native range of Populus is primarily North America, Europe, North Africa and parts of Asia. Populus sp. is
currently important for pulp production in the western US, Europe and China as well as for certain lumber
applications in China and Europe. The reasons are rapid growth rates, as well as highly desirable wood properties
for multiple forest processing industries.
In parts of the US, Populus sp. has the potential to substantially increase forest productivity for a wide variety of
forest product uses. The United States Department of Energy has identified Populus sp. as being an important woody
biomass feedstock. Populus sp. offers multiple advantages as a biomass crop including high productivity on short
rotations, potential for planting on marginal lands, multiple crops from a single planting (coppicing ability), high bulk
density, excellent fiber properties and high carbon storage. Populus sp. commonly planted in the US and worldwide
includes cottonwood and hybrid poplar.
Best plantation growth will be realized when timely and adequate silvicultural management is practiced. Actual
yields will vary due to climate, site conditions, and management inputs. Future success of any hardwood plantation
project will depend on several important factors that include proper site selection, adequate site preparation, quality
seedlings and tree planting, and appropriate cultural treatments for follow-up care.
Site Selection - Site selection should be made at least one year before the planned planting date to permit time for
chemical and mechanical site preparation treatments. Moderately well to well drained soils with some degree of clay
content for water retention are desirable. Avoid excessively well drained or poorly drained sites and soils with pH less
than 5.0 or greater than 8.0. Somewhat poorly drained soils that have good internal drainage can be used if bedding
is conducted.
Site Preparation - Beginning chemical site preparation
treatments at least one year earlier than the planned
planting date will usually provide the flexibility needed
to get hard-to-kill pine, hardwood and grass species
under control prior to planting. Ensure that appropriately
labeled herbicides are used for hardwood planting
purposes to ensure no herbicide carryover issues.
Mechanical site preparation should consist of bedding
or subsoiling that is completed between mid-summer and
early fall. Populus sp. requires a combination of both
chemical and mechanical site preparation for best
growth. Old-field sites may need to be subsoiled for
improved site conditions following cultivation. General guidelines as to the geographic areas various
hardwood species are adapted to in the eastern US.
Product Market Ranges
PAGE 9 STAND MANAGER
Tree Planting - Normally with cottonwood and hybrid poplar planting is accomplished by pushing 12-18” long sticks
into the soil leaving only the upper 1-2 buds above the soil surface. Spring planting is preferred. Best survival and
growth will occur with cottonwood if planting is done about 3 weeks before the expected last frost date. Hand
planting is the norm but mechanical planting is possible depending on equipment and contractor experience with
sticks and/or container stock. Tree planting for pulpwood regimes should plant between 450-600 TPA while a
bioenergy regime may plant between 800-1,200 TPA on shorter rotations. The upper limit to plant may depend on
the water holding capacity of the soil.
Table 3: Suggested Rotation Length and Yields for Populus sp.
Weed control - After planting, follow-up herbaceous weed control is a must.
Complete weed control for the first 1.5 years will be needed on most sites.
Once the trees have closed canopy, no additional weed control is necessary.
Note that pine site preparation or release tank mixes will result in Populus sp.
mortality or stunted growth. All label and safety instructions should be
adhered to during herbicide applications to prevent seedling damage or loss.
Fertilization - Nutrient management is also essential. A soil analysis should be
done before planting or application. Any macro and micro nutrient deficien-cies
should be corrected with a base fertilization before planting occurs.
After crown closure at age 2-3 years, broadcast application of 150-200 lbs/
acre urea may be needed on some soils. Weed control must be adequate
before any nitrogen application. Once the stand is fully established and the
site is fully captured, no additional fertilization is usually required.
Insect Control - Cottonwood leaf beetle can be a serious insect pest. Plantations should be monitored for signs of
infestation. A systemic insecticide such as Admire Pro could be injected in the soil at each tree early in the growing
season for control. Later in the season, a foliar application of Sevin could be applied as an effective means of control.
Hardwood plantations may offer landowners an attractive rate of return if
an increased demand for biomass feedstock develops along with higher
stumpage prices for the end use products. They often have high upfront
costs from establishment practices and cultural treatments, however a
coppice rotation can be utilized in successive years to lower future costs.
Lesser upfront costs means greater returns from similar harvest values.
For more information about growing Populus sp. Contact ArborGen at
www.ArborGen.com or 1-843-991-2911 or jawright@arborgen.com
References:
Jeff Wright. Growing Populus sp. in the southeastern US.
Internal Arborgen Technical publication.
Dougherty & Wright. 2012. Eucalyptus for US south. BioResources 7(2), 1994-2001.
Species Bioenergy Rotation (3-5 Yrs.) Pulpwood Rotation (8 -10 Yrs.)
Cottonwood MAI 8-12 Tons/Acre/Yr. MAI 14-18 Tons/Acre/Yr
Populus MAI 12-16 Tons/Acre/Yr MAI 14-18 Tons/Acre/Yr
3 Yr. old hybrid Poplar near Roxboro, NC
2 Yr. old hybrid Poplar near Columbia, SC

Technical Development, Planning and Utilization
Unit Newsletter
NC Forest Service (NCFS) - NCDA & CS
Stand Manager
VOLUME 6, ISSUE 2 WINTER ISSUE— DECEMBER 2012
Inside this issue:
Tech Update 1
Pine Silviculture—Shortleaf 1-3
Agroforestry Research 4-5
Forest Economics for RCW 6
Nursery/TI Update 7
Field Notes 7
Hardwood Silviculture 8-9
In this issue, we provide technical information and research results targeted toward
two tree species that the NC Forest Service is devoting increased efforts, namely
longleaf pine and shortleaf pine. These efforts will help to provide activities toward
our strategic objectives in the NC Forest Action Plan. They include objective 4.3— To
advocate and promote markets for forest derived ecosystem services and non-timber
products, and objective 5.3—Promote the restoration and conservation of declining
tree species and forest ecosystems. “Maintain and Restore Forests in Decline” is a key
Departmental Initiative that has been incorporated into the NCDA & CS Strategic Plan.
Also in this issue is cooperative research results with NC State University regarding an
Agroforestry trial that was established on NCDA & CS land along with forest economic
analysis of conservation payments for off-base RCW mitigation on private land. Our
nursery and tree improvement program continues to support both federal & state
initiatives to develop future capacity for tree species of concern. The last article pro-vides
a summary on growing hardwood tree species to meet a projected increased
demand for woody biomass from emerging bioenergy markets in the southern US.
Pine Silviculture
Shortleaf pine is an important but declining tree species in the southeastern US. Compared to the widely planted
loblolly pine, restoration of shortleaf pine deserves an increased consideration for future management because of
desirable traits that make it resilient to climate change, tolerant to drought conditions, and management acceptance
of prescribed fire to provide multiple benefits for wildlife habitat and ecosystem benefits. To be successful with any
shortleaf pine restoration efforts, it will be important to properly evaluate the site potential or site index (SI) for
potential management.
Several methods have been developed for predicting site index for a species when it
cannot be directly measured, and may be determined using either: (1) association of site
quality classes with soil series, soil mapping unit, or some other soil physical properties,
(2) prediction of SI from a mathematical equation using measured soil and site
characteristics.
Tech Update: By Barry New
Site Evaluation For Shortleaf Pine Restoration
By Ron Myers
Technical Development, Planning and Utilization Unit
Newsletter
NC Forest Service (NCFS) - NCDA & CS
The Stand Manager Editor: Ron.Myers@ncagr.gov 2411 Old US Hwy. 70West, Clayton NC 27520 919-553-6178
Early work in the Piedmont region examined the relation of soil characteristics and properties to site index of loblolly
and shortleaf pines (Coile 1948, Coile and Schumacher 1953). Soil features most often correlated with shortleaf pine
site quality are surface soil thickness, depth to a restricting, mottled, or less permeable horizon; surface soil texture,
subsoil texture, and subsoil consistency. Both texture and structure are correlated with consistence that can be
grouped into subsoil classes. These variables can influence soil aeration, internal drainage, moisture holding capacity,
and ultimately the growth of tree roots important for long-term tree productivity and health.
Table 1: Site Index values for Shortleaf pine in the Piedmont Plateau by Subsoil class.
1Coile and Schumacher 1953
The best shortleaf pine sites are usually on well-drained, medium textured soils, with a good depth of A horizon
(> 6”). Medium-textured soils make good sites because they have adequate available soil moisture and nutrient
levels, good soil structure, internal drainage and aeration, all of which favor tree root development. Fine-textured
soils generally have adequate soil moisture, but they are often of lower site quality because of dense clay subsoil
with poor structure, internal drainage and aeration, or lack of A horizon from erosion. Sites where soils are composed
of alluvium present a special situation where drainage class, the depth of the slope, and distance to the drainage
channel may have equal or greater effects on site quality than properties of the soil profile alone. In the western part
of the range of shortleaf pine, topographic features affecting site quality are aspect, slope steepness, slope position,
slope shape, and elevation. The best sites are generally on N to E facing, gently sloping, concave, or lower slope
positions, while poor sites are on narrow ridges and S to W facing, steep, convex upper slopes (Graney 1986).
Site Index Relationships
Although site index can be predicted using soil characteristics, another approach has been to use
the measured site index of a commonly associated species. Site index comparisons between loblolly
and shortleaf pine indicate that the SI of either species can be predicted using the SI of the other.
The relationship between site index values for both loblolly pine (SIL) and shortleaf pine (SIS)
appear to be linear, with the mean difference in SI greatest on poor sites and decreasing as site
quality improves. Early research by T.S. Coile on shortleaf pine in the Piedmont region of NC found that loblolly pine
site index was always higher than that of shortleaf with no significant differences attributed to topographic position
class alone. Coile’s simple regression equations using SI alone and no site/soil variables produced the following:
SIS = 0.885(SIL) and SIL = 1.13(SIS), using a zero intercept method.
PAGE 2 STAND MANAGER
Pine Silviculture Continued:
Depth to Subsoil (inches)
Subsoil
Consistence
2 4 6 8 10 12 18
Very Friable 51 62 66 68 69 70 71
Friable 47 59 62 64 65 66 67
Semi-Plastic 43 54 58 60 61 62 63
Plastic 38 49 53 55 56 57 58
Very Plastic 33 44 48 50 51 52 53
VOLUME 6, ISSUE 2 PAGE 3
References:
Coile, T.S. 1948. Relation of Soil Characteristics to Site Index of Loblolly and Shortleaf Pines in the lower Piedmont
Region of North Carolina. Bulletin 13. Duke Univ., Sch. For., Durham NC, NC.78 p.
Coile, T.S. and Schumacher, F.X. 1953. Relation of Soil Properties to Site Index of Loblolly and Shortleaf Pines in the
Piedmont Region of the Carolinas, Georgia, and Alabama. J. For. 51(10): 739-744.
Graney, D.L. 1986. Site Quality Relationships for Shortleaf Pine. P. 41-52 in Proc. Symp. on the Shortleaf Pine
Ecosystem. Ark. Coop. Ext. Serv., Monticellow, AR.
Harrington, C.A. 1987. Site-Index Comparisons for Naturally Seeded Loblolly Pine and Shortleaf Pine. SJAF 11(1987).
Harrington’s research included a larger sample of plots (190) between the two species in nine southern states and
examined geographical difference between plots located in the east vs. west along with effects from elevation and
mean slope percent. He found that simple regression equations predicting the SI of one species using only the SI of
the other species were not significantly different for plots in the east and west and that the correlation coefficients
and standard errors were higher in eastern plots. He found that simple regression equations predicting the SI of one
pine species using only the SI of the other pine species were not significantly different for plots in the east and west
and that the correlation coefficients and standard errors were higher in eastern plots.
His simple regression equations for SI for both species were as follows SIS = 0.963(SIL) – 1.62 with standard error of
5.70 and SIL = 0.791(SIS) + 20.68 with standard error of 5.17 The correlation coefficient was the same for both
equations with (R2)=0.872 Using these simple regression equations from Harrington and Coile, a site index
comparison graph can be produced for graphical interpretation of SI for both species on the same land (Figure 1).
Site index differences between shortleaf and loblolly pine in mixed stands are usually 10-15 feet on better sites in
the Carolina Piedmont and 0-10 feet, depending on the soil and site conditions in the western part of the range.
However, Harrington’s research suggests that contrary to past perceptions that shortleaf pine would be most
competitive with that of loblolly pine on poor sites, site index of shortleaf pine was most comparable to loblolly pine
on the better sites.
Figure 1: SI Comparison for Loblolly pine and Shortleaf pine on the same land.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Loblolly Pine
(SIL)
Shortleaf Pine (SIS)
Coile 1948
Harrington 1987
PAGE 4 STAND MANAGER
Early Tree Growth, Crop Yields, and Estimated Returns
for an Agroforestry Trial In Goldsboro, North Carolina
AgroForestry
The NC Forest Service cooperated with researchers at NC State University on an agroforestry project that
was established at the Center for Environmental Farming Systems in Goldsboro, North Carolina in January
2007. The NC Forest Service provided technical field assistance with species/site evaluation, forest tree
seedlings, and tree planting recommendations. Below is a short abstract summary of the results that have
been published in the above scientific paper.
Abstract: A 17 acre (6.9 ha) agroforestry
research and extension alley cropping trial was
established at the Center for Environmental
Farming Systems in Goldsboro, North Carolina in
January 2007, with a randomized block design
with five replications. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), and cherrybark oak
(Quercus pagoda) were planted in staggered
rows, with each species planted for 140 ft (43 m)
per Replication. Crop land alleys of 40 ft or 80 ft
(12.2 to 24.4 m) wide were left between the tree
rows. Crops of soybeans (Glycine max) and corn
(Zea mays) were planted in alternating years
since establishment.
As of 2011, survival rates were 93% for cherrybark oak, 88% for longleaf pine, and 97% for loblolly pine.
Average tree diameter at ground level was 1.0 in (2.5 cm) for cherrybark oak, 2.1 in (5.3 cm) for longleaf,
and 3.2 in (8.1 cm) for loblolly. Heights averaged 4.6 ft (1.4 m) for cherrybark oak, 5.2 ft (1.6 m) for longleaf
pine, and 10.4 ft (3.2 m) for loblolly pine. Growth, yield, and economic projections for traditional timber
production indicated that species volumes and values tracked the height and diameter relationships
measured on the site. Loblolly pine had the largest projected internal rate of return, at 7.2%, followed by
longleaf pine with pine straw harvests at 5.5%, longleaf without pine straw at 3.5%, and cherrybark oak at
1.9%. Their discounted land expectation values (and annual equivalent values) per acre at a 4% discount
rate were $789 ($32) for loblolly; $346 ($11) for longleaf with pine straw; -$49 (-$2) for longleaf; and -$376
(-$15) for cherrybark oak.
There might be more loss in crop and silvopasture production from shade and
root competition with loblolly, however, and production of pine straw for longleaf
or acorn mast from cherrybark oak may offer other benefits. Crop yields on the
sandy soils on the site were very poor during the four years observed, which had
a series of droughts and floods. These led to net financial losses averaging about
$150 per acre per year for those four years at the demonstration site, but
state-wide average farm budget returns did show moderate profits of about
$80 per acre per year. The results support the merits of agroforestry systems in
the upper South to diversify income and reduce financial risks.
By Fred Cubbage and Ron Myers
Agroforestry Trial on NCDA land in Goldsboro, NC
V PAGE 5 OLUME 6, ISSUE 2
A summary of the financial returns for tree species is presented in Table 2. These results do not include
cost-share payments in the analysis and would represent a baseline minimum that could be expected with
the potential for higher returns if cost-share payments were utilized to reduce establishment costs.
Table 2: Growth and Capital Budgeting Results for Three Species for Timber Production
Management Regimes at a Discount Rate of 4%
Over the 5 year study period, the forest tree species prospered
more than the crops, which were almost failures two out of the
four years. Between the periods of 2007-2010 alternate years of
either soybeans or corn resulted in negative returns/acre. If indeed
climate change does occur and is associated with decreased
summer rainfall and higher temperatures, agroforestry systems
with crops, or particularly livestock, do appear to be more viable
to diversify farm risk and ensure that at least some timber returns
are produced to offset any frequent years of crop losses.
Early results from this research trial indicate that each of these
tree systems could survive and provide some growth and modest
financial returns for an agroforestry system—perhaps as much
of more than pure crop systems on poor sites. As more time
progresses, the alley crop and livestock interactions will make this agroforestry trial and financial returns
more complex.
Additional agroforestry information in the form of fact sheets and power point presentations can be found
at the USDA National Agroforestry Center’s website at www.unl.edu/nac
Reference:
Cubbage, Frederick, Viola Glenn, J. Paul Mueller, Daniel Robison, Russell Myers, Jean-Marie Luginbuhl,
and Ron Myers. 2012. Early Tree Growth, Crop Yields, and Estimated Returns For an Agroforestry Trial in
Goldsboro, North Carolina. Agroforestry Systems. Agroforest Syst DOI 10.1007/s10457-012-9481-0.
Species
Rotation
Age
(yrs)
Harvest
Years
(Thin/
Final)
Total Projected
Volume Cut / MAI
(ft3/ac)
Net
Present
Value
($/ac)
Land
Expectation
Value ($/ac)
Annual
Equivalent
Value ($/ac)
Internal
Rate of
Return (%)
Cherrybark
Oak
80 55&80 4,846
61
-360 -376 -15 1.9
Longleaf Pine
*Timber Only
40
25&40
2,826
71
-49
-61
-2
3.7
Longleaf Pine
*Timber and
Pine Straw
40
25&40
2,826
71
274
346
11
5.5
Loblolly Pine 25 17&25 2,700
108
493 789 32 7.2
NCDA Forester David Schnake next to
planted oak trees in agroforestry trial.
PAGE 6 STAND MANAGER
Forest Economics By Fred Cubbage and Ron Myers
In 2012, the North Carolina Forest Service collaborated with researchers at NC State University to help develop and
analyze stand-level management regimes that are used to manage both Longleaf pine and Loblolly pine for economic
comparisons and to determine economic incentives in the form of conservation payments that would be required to
promote a change in landowner management preferences. Below is a abstract summary of a presentation of the
research that was presented at the Ecosystem Services Conference, December 10-14th, 2012 in Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Abstract: Military bases are central to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery plan for the red- cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) in North Carolina. A key strategy proposed for meeting the on base requirements of the
ESA is the development of economic incentives to encourage cooperative conservation of RCW habitat between
federal military and nonindustrial private agricultural and forest landowners (NIPAFs). Longleaf pine manage-ment
regimes were analyzed for three primary goals that included (1) timber maximization, (2) multiple
products, and (3) ecological services focused on developing RCW habitat. Capital budgeting models for land
management options consistent with RCW habitat requirements were analyzed and compared with traditional
pine management options and agricultural alternatives, using discounted cash flow measures of net present value
(NPV) and soil expectation value (SEV) as criteria at a 4% discount rate. The difference between the base loblolly
pine management options and the longleaf pine alternatives provided a baseline opportunity cost for conversion
to RCW habitat.
Longleaf pine managed for ecosystem services had lower financial returns than conventional loblolly pine and
only yielded a positive NPV with the addition of moderate pine straw revenues. Depending on the site quality
and management regime, the opportunity costs of conversion of loblolly pine to longleaf pine managed for
ecosystem services ranged from $485 to $698 per acre with no pine straw income to $56 to $255 per acre with
moderate income from pine straw. These results were highly sensitive to changes in both stumpage price and
cost share rate. The opportunity cost associated with transitioning average agriculture sites to longleaf ranged
from $1,612 to $4,655 per acre dependent on the crop, indicating that any future incentives for habitat creating
programs should focus on lands that favor forestry or on poor agriculture lands.
These loblolly and crop opportunity cost estimates could be used as a basis to
support conservation payments to provide an economic incentive for NIPAFs
to manage for RCW habitat. The 10 year annual conservation payment that
would be required to make longleaf pine financial returns equal to loblolly
pine ranged from $58 to $83 per acre per year with no pine straw income
and $7 to $50 per acre per year with moderate income from pine straw.
These conservation payment rates are reasonable, and suggest payments for
ecosystem services offer potential to establish longleaf pine ecosystems and
create additional RCW habitat on nonindustrial private agriculture and forest
lands. Other possible RCW ecosystem payments that could be investigated
could include paying much of the costs for longleaf stand establishment, or
paying landowners to extend the harvest of old loblolly pine or longleaf
stands for up to 30 years.
Economic Analysis of Payments Required to Promote Increased Longleaf Pine
Habitat on Private Lands in NC for Off-Base RCW Mitigation
RCW tree in LL stand at BLSF
Reference:
Glenn, Viola, Fred Cubbage, and Ron Myers. 2012. Using private lands to mitigate public Endangered Species Act requirements:
Opportunity costs for managing for red-cockaded woodpecker habitat on private lands in North Carolina. In: Proceedings,
Southern Forest Economics Workers Annual Meeting. In prep. Access at: http://sofew.cfr.msstate.edu/.
VOLUME 6, ISSUE 2 PAGE 7
Ranger Training Class Pictures 2012
In November 2011, a Memorandum of Agreement was
signed by the NC Forest Service and the US Forest Service,
National Forest System, Southern Region to facilitate
Shortleaf Pine nursery and tree improvement projects
in NC. In the agreement, both parties agree to work
collaboratively, including exchange of personnel and
other resources, in matters relating to the genetic
improvement and use of shortleaf pine germplasm for
the development of new genetic material and orchards
for future ecosystem restoration in the south.
NC Forest Service coordinated with USFS Silviculturists
and National Forest field personnel to visit and document
the location/condition of 10 Shortleaf Pine progeny
tests that were established in NC between the years of
1982-1986. NC Forest Service personnel from TDP, FIA,
and Nursery programs measured 6 Shortleaf Pine progeny
tests in the Fall 2012 to collect tree and family data on planted Shortleaf pine. Data from these 26-30 year old
shortleaf progeny tests are being analyzed by our Forest Geneticist to make future selections in these full sib crosses
to create new 2nd generation improved shortleaf pine seed orchards.
Field Notes: Special Projects & FM Activities submitted by County personnel or Foresters
Nursery & Tree Improvement News
NCFS Nursery & Tree Improvement Program Working on
Genetically Improved 2nd Generation Shortleaf Pine
By Ken Roeder—NCFS Forest Geneticist
Ranger Training Level I Ranger Training Level II
Retired USFS Silviculturist John Blanton (L), and current USFS
Silviculturist Jason Rodrique (R), standing in a Shortleaf Pine
progeny planting in the Nantahalla, NF
PAGE 8 STAND MANAGER
Hardwood Silviculture
Growing Populus Sp. in the Southern US for Short Rotation
Woody Crops (SRWC)
By Jeff Wright and Ron Myers
Demand for hardwood from plantation-grown stands for pulp and bioenergy in the southern US is more than 90
million tons/year and is increasing. Several fast growing hardwood species are being evaluated for planting to fill
this potential demand. The genus Populus, with more than 30 species, has some of the fastest growing trees in the
world. The native range of Populus is primarily North America, Europe, North Africa and parts of Asia. Populus sp. is
currently important for pulp production in the western US, Europe and China as well as for certain lumber
applications in China and Europe. The reasons are rapid growth rates, as well as highly desirable wood properties
for multiple forest processing industries.
In parts of the US, Populus sp. has the potential to substantially increase forest productivity for a wide variety of
forest product uses. The United States Department of Energy has identified Populus sp. as being an important woody
biomass feedstock. Populus sp. offers multiple advantages as a biomass crop including high productivity on short
rotations, potential for planting on marginal lands, multiple crops from a single planting (coppicing ability), high bulk
density, excellent fiber properties and high carbon storage. Populus sp. commonly planted in the US and worldwide
includes cottonwood and hybrid poplar.
Best plantation growth will be realized when timely and adequate silvicultural management is practiced. Actual
yields will vary due to climate, site conditions, and management inputs. Future success of any hardwood plantation
project will depend on several important factors that include proper site selection, adequate site preparation, quality
seedlings and tree planting, and appropriate cultural treatments for follow-up care.
Site Selection - Site selection should be made at least one year before the planned planting date to permit time for
chemical and mechanical site preparation treatments. Moderately well to well drained soils with some degree of clay
content for water retention are desirable. Avoid excessively well drained or poorly drained sites and soils with pH less
than 5.0 or greater than 8.0. Somewhat poorly drained soils that have good internal drainage can be used if bedding
is conducted.
Site Preparation - Beginning chemical site preparation
treatments at least one year earlier than the planned
planting date will usually provide the flexibility needed
to get hard-to-kill pine, hardwood and grass species
under control prior to planting. Ensure that appropriately
labeled herbicides are used for hardwood planting
purposes to ensure no herbicide carryover issues.
Mechanical site preparation should consist of bedding
or subsoiling that is completed between mid-summer and
early fall. Populus sp. requires a combination of both
chemical and mechanical site preparation for best
growth. Old-field sites may need to be subsoiled for
improved site conditions following cultivation. General guidelines as to the geographic areas various
hardwood species are adapted to in the eastern US.
Product Market Ranges
PAGE 9 STAND MANAGER
Tree Planting - Normally with cottonwood and hybrid poplar planting is accomplished by pushing 12-18” long sticks
into the soil leaving only the upper 1-2 buds above the soil surface. Spring planting is preferred. Best survival and
growth will occur with cottonwood if planting is done about 3 weeks before the expected last frost date. Hand
planting is the norm but mechanical planting is possible depending on equipment and contractor experience with
sticks and/or container stock. Tree planting for pulpwood regimes should plant between 450-600 TPA while a
bioenergy regime may plant between 800-1,200 TPA on shorter rotations. The upper limit to plant may depend on
the water holding capacity of the soil.
Table 3: Suggested Rotation Length and Yields for Populus sp.
Weed control - After planting, follow-up herbaceous weed control is a must.
Complete weed control for the first 1.5 years will be needed on most sites.
Once the trees have closed canopy, no additional weed control is necessary.
Note that pine site preparation or release tank mixes will result in Populus sp.
mortality or stunted growth. All label and safety instructions should be
adhered to during herbicide applications to prevent seedling damage or loss.
Fertilization - Nutrient management is also essential. A soil analysis should be
done before planting or application. Any macro and micro nutrient deficien-cies
should be corrected with a base fertilization before planting occurs.
After crown closure at age 2-3 years, broadcast application of 150-200 lbs/
acre urea may be needed on some soils. Weed control must be adequate
before any nitrogen application. Once the stand is fully established and the
site is fully captured, no additional fertilization is usually required.
Insect Control - Cottonwood leaf beetle can be a serious insect pest. Plantations should be monitored for signs of
infestation. A systemic insecticide such as Admire Pro could be injected in the soil at each tree early in the growing
season for control. Later in the season, a foliar application of Sevin could be applied as an effective means of control.
Hardwood plantations may offer landowners an attractive rate of return if
an increased demand for biomass feedstock develops along with higher
stumpage prices for the end use products. They often have high upfront
costs from establishment practices and cultural treatments, however a
coppice rotation can be utilized in successive years to lower future costs.
Lesser upfront costs means greater returns from similar harvest values.
For more information about growing Populus sp. Contact ArborGen at
www.ArborGen.com or 1-843-991-2911 or jawright@arborgen.com
References:
Jeff Wright. Growing Populus sp. in the southeastern US.
Internal Arborgen Technical publication.
Dougherty & Wright. 2012. Eucalyptus for US south. BioResources 7(2), 1994-2001.
Species Bioenergy Rotation (3-5 Yrs.) Pulpwood Rotation (8 -10 Yrs.)
Cottonwood MAI 8-12 Tons/Acre/Yr. MAI 14-18 Tons/Acre/Yr
Populus MAI 12-16 Tons/Acre/Yr MAI 14-18 Tons/Acre/Yr
3 Yr. old hybrid Poplar near Roxboro, NC
2 Yr. old hybrid Poplar near Columbia, SC